4.3 Article

Differences in Body Mass Index between Siblings Who Are Discordant for Exposure to Antenatal Maternal Smoking

期刊

PAEDIATRIC AND PERINATAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 31, 期 5, 页码 402-408

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12386

关键词

child; obesity; pregnancy; smoking

资金

  1. FARR institute
  2. MRC [MR/M501633/2, MR/K007017/1, MR/M501633/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_13040, MR/M501633/1, MR/M501633/2, MR/K007017/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundMaternal smoking during pregnancy is associated with increased childhood body mass index (BMI), but the relationship may be due to confounding by maternal factors. This study tested the hypothesis that siblings born to mothers who begin to smoke between pregnancies will have higher BMI than older unexposed siblings. MethodsMaternal details from the Aberdeen Maternity and Neonatal Databank were linked to the Study of Trends in Obesity in North East Scotland which holds offspring BMI at 5 years of age. Change in maternal smoking status between pregnancies was linked to offspring BMI and also to the difference in BMI between siblings. ResultsMaternal smoking status in successive pregnancies was linked to child BMI at age 5 years in 6581 mother-child pairs of whom 718 included sibling pars. Children whose mothers had quit, started smoking or smoked in consecutive pregnancies had higher BMI compared with those not exposed to maternal smoking. Siblings born after onset of maternal smoking had higher mean BMI z score (0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01, 0.36) compared with unexposed older siblings. Mean BMI z score was also higher by mean of 0.10 (95% CI 0.01, 0.20) in younger sibling compared with older siblings born to mothers who smoked in both pregnancies. BMI z score was not significantly different between siblings whose mothers quit between pregnancies. ConclusionsIn utero exposure to maternal smoking during pregnancy may increase the likelihood of increased BMI in childhood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据